Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Employee

Credit Union

Representatives

M Corcoran

David Pearson, J W O'Donovan Sols.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00031470-001

09/10/2019

The Complainant contends that the Respondent failed to investigate complaints she lodged against the CEO and Board.

The Complainant is employed as an Assistant Credit Officer with the Respondent. She has been employed for more than 9 years, and her role primarily involves meeting potential borrowers, assessing capacity to meet repayments, liaising with ICB, approving loans to a certain level and general overall responsibility in the Lending area. During 2018 a decision was made to engage in Mortgage lending and the Complainant was instructed to attend a training course. Her Union objected and considered that this new activity as an extra responsibility which was adding to a large workload. The new CEO and Board appear to have taken the concerns personally as they advised that any staff not cooperating with the new arrangements would be robustly dealt with under the Disciplinary process. A number of inappropriate interactions and behaviours ensued particularly against the Complainant who was in fact the only member of staff qualified to deal with Mortgage Lending at that time.   The Complainant was obliged, as a result to take sick leave due to work related stress in April 2019 and she resumed against medical advice. She is currently on sick leave since 17th July 2019 suffering illness due to work related stress. A recent psychiatric assessment advised that she “suffers low mood and anxiety along with broken sleep and these relate to the trauma of her period in work from September 2018 to June 2019.”   The Complainant made a complaint of Bullying and Harassment against the CEO on 8th July 2019. She lodged a separate though not unrelated complaint on the same date against the Board of Directors and their inappropriate involvement in staff matters wholly outside their remit and the executive function of managing staff. The Central Bank’s governance for Credit Unions specifically emphasises the “separation between the two distinct sets of roles in a credit union, i.e. the executive or operational roles, and the non-executive or governance roles”. The Complainant has been on sick leave and without pay for many months and no effort was made to ameliorate the situation for her to resume work or engage in any rehabilitation process to allow her to return. It is submitted that the Respondent failed to investigate her complaints. Aside from one call informing her that her entitlement to sick pay had expired, she has not received so much as a phone call or any enquiry regarding her health from the Respondent. It is submitted that the Respondent failed to initiate or conclude an investigation into her complaint and is guilty of obfuscation and at worst recklessness and disregard for the Complainant’s welfare. It is submitted that the Complainant has not been in receipt of income for some considerable time and this is as a direct result of the failure by the Respondent to investigate the Complainant’s complaint. A prime example of the unbridled mistreatment of the Complainant is contained in the emails between the CEO and the Board during the Union involvement in the Mortgages issue.   It is submitted that the failure to investigate has had an adverse affect on the Complainant, that there has been an unacceptable blurring of the roles between the Executive and the Board and that there has been significant financial costs incurred by the Complainant due to this and she cannot resume work until such time as her health and safety can be reasonably assured.

The Respondent’s submission is limited to outlining the factual background to the progression of a complaint made by the Complainant against 1) The CEO under the anti-bullying policy made on 8th July 2019 and 2) a separate complaint against the Board of Directors under the Respondent’s Grievance Procedure. The submission does not address issues of behaviour and/or conduct of any party that gave rise to the two initial complaints made by the Complainant, which issues are matters to be addressed exclusively during the progress of investigations under the relevant Policies and which issues have not yet been investigated, solely by reason of the Complainant having made a complaint to the WRC.   It is submitted that the Complainant has not exhausted all internal processes provided for under the relevant policies prior to referring the matter to the WRC and that accordingly the WRC has no jurisdiction to entertain the current two complaints filed with it by the Complainant. The Complainant’s complaints were considered by the Respondent’s Audit Committee which recommended that all parties should be invited to mediation with the mediation being conducted by a mediator accredited to the Mediators Institute of Ireland. It was also advised to the Complainant that the Terms of Reference of the mediation would be determined by the independent mediator to encompass her complaints and to include all parties being entitled to representation at any mediation by a staff member or Trade Union Representative as outlined in the Respondent’s policies. The Board of Directors and the CEO accepted the invitation to enter mediation. The Complainant by letter dated 9th August 2019 indicated she was prepared to engage in mediation subject to her being accompanied by representation of her choice. It was subsequently confirmed to her that the Board had decided that the entitlement to representation is as set out in the relevant policies and not otherwise, namely a member of staff or Trade Union Representative. The Complainant then filed the current complaint with the WRC. The Respondent submits that it has established internal mechanisms for addressing grievances and that the Complainant has not exhausted these procedures prior to referring her dispute to the WRC. It is well established practice by the WRC and the Labour Court that they do not intervene in a dispute under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 until all internal procedures have been fully exhausted. In those circumstances it is requested that the Complainant be recommended to exhaust all internal dispute resolution mechanisms before further consideration of the matter.

The Complainant made a complaint of Bullying and Harassment against the CEO on 8th July 2019, and at the same time, made a not unrelated complaint against the Board of Directors. I note there was a series of correspondence between the parties, at the end of which the Complainant did not wish to embark on mediation.   While I note the Respondent’s point about the exhaustion of internal procedures, this is not a clear case of insisting that internal mechanisms should be exhausted, as it involves the CEO and the Board. I gather from the hearing that the Respondent has no particular difficulty agreeing to an independent investigation into the Complainant’s complaints. The Respondent’s reluctance to propose such a course was possibly due to the Complainant being on sick leave due to stress. I recommend that if the Complainant obtains a medical certificate to state that she is fit to participate, that an independent investigation with agreed terms of reference and a target end date be commenced immediately on receipt of such certification by the Respondent. In relation to the issue of representation, it should be noted that S.I. 146/2000 which is the statutory instrument governing best practice on grievance and disciplinary procedures states at Section 4: